đź“… Original date posted:2022-04-21
đź“ť Original message:
Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com> writes:
> Sure, if you’re rejecting a large % of channel updates in total
> you’re gonna end up hitting degenerate cases, but we can consider
> tuning the sync frequency if that becomes an issue.
Let's be clear: it's a problem.
Allowing only 1 a day, ended up with 18% of channels hitting the spam
limit. We cannot fit that many channel differences inside a set!
Perhaps Alex should post his more detailed results, but it's pretty
clear that we can't stay in sync with this many differences :(
> gossip queries is broken in at least five ways.
Naah, it's perfect if you simply want to ask "give me updates since XXX"
to get you close enough on reconnect to start using set reconciliation.
This might allow us to remove some of the other features?
But we might end up with a gossip2 if we want to enable taproot, and use
blockheight as timestamps, in which case we could probably just support
that one operation (and maybe a direct query op).
> Like eclair, we don’t bother to rate limit and don’t see any issues with it, though we will skip relaying outbound updates if we’re saturating outbound connections.
Yeah, we did as a trial, and in some cases it's become limiting. In
particular, people restarting their LND nodes once a day resulting in 2
updates per day (which, in 0.11.0, we now allow).
Cheers,
Rusty.
Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1zw…hkhpx
2023-06-09 13:05:54
in reply to nevent1q…r0e3
Author Public Key
npub1zw7cc8z78v6s3grujfvcv3ckpvg6kr0w7nz9yzvwyglyg0qu5sjsqhkhpxPublished at
2023-06-09 13:05:54Event JSON
{
"id": "a4b3598b417f6791a3d7f8613d3b9a7f214a6d80692ce4d408452cb6b4138a21",
"pubkey": "13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425",
"created_at": 1686315954,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"90c8a22893d09190339208f6b0eb636d6de40a2b6c7cff5708a261796a93b71e",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"c4d74e05cd8fa6cc2e6f4d64985c3a2ea57118c33792e70fe80b828db1662206",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"937f10fc4f78d8676348562d9d886843fbb351d99d6c96423fe9970819962e19"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-04-21\n📝 Original message:\nMatt Corallo \u003clf-lists at mattcorallo.com\u003e writes:\n\u003e Sure, if you’re rejecting a large % of channel updates in total\n\u003e you’re gonna end up hitting degenerate cases, but we can consider\n\u003e tuning the sync frequency if that becomes an issue.\n\nLet's be clear: it's a problem.\n\nAllowing only 1 a day, ended up with 18% of channels hitting the spam\nlimit. We cannot fit that many channel differences inside a set!\n\nPerhaps Alex should post his more detailed results, but it's pretty\nclear that we can't stay in sync with this many differences :(\n\n\u003e gossip queries is broken in at least five ways.\n\nNaah, it's perfect if you simply want to ask \"give me updates since XXX\"\nto get you close enough on reconnect to start using set reconciliation.\nThis might allow us to remove some of the other features?\n\nBut we might end up with a gossip2 if we want to enable taproot, and use\nblockheight as timestamps, in which case we could probably just support\nthat one operation (and maybe a direct query op).\n\n\u003e Like eclair, we don’t bother to rate limit and don’t see any issues with it, though we will skip relaying outbound updates if we’re saturating outbound connections.\n\nYeah, we did as a trial, and in some cases it's become limiting. In\nparticular, people restarting their LND nodes once a day resulting in 2\nupdates per day (which, in 0.11.0, we now allow).\n\nCheers,\nRusty.",
"sig": "48a9f7cabae641730f38d333b2d28bbd4b603c0499a3d86871536bff4a55b7973a7d90c994ba50c437a6049b0c97a58f0344b07975acc21e27e7cb44f2a4573c"
}